ALAMEDA, Calif. – The school board blinked.
Under the duress of a lawsuit and threats of recall, the Alameda Board of Education has voted to phase out an elementary school curriculum it adopted in May to prevent anti-gay bullying.
The so-called Lesson 9, which had become an opposition centerpiece in a national anti-gay marriage campaign, will be replaced by a more generic anti-bullying message.
But the board's action Tuesday night did little to ease the tension between gay parents, who want their children protected, and parents who who think elementary school is too early to talk to students about gay people.
Story Link: Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum - Yahoo! News
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Okay, I'll start. I totally agree and think they made the right decision. That's my opinion, based on how I feel about the subject. No fancy explanations forthcoming from me.
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
I agree that they have done the right thing too. It's not that they've just got rid of it, more updated it with a generic all encompasing anti-bullying campaign.
there is also the fact that drawing attention to gay bullying specifically may in fact alienate them further, or highlight differences - whereas an all round anti bullying campaign targets the bullying behaviours themselves.
there is also the fact that drawing attention to gay bullying specifically may in fact alienate them further, or highlight differences - whereas an all round anti bullying campaign targets the bullying behaviours themselves.
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Bullying is bullying regardless of the reason given by the bully. The anti-bullying message must, therefore, be generic and all bullying stopped at source regardless of the reason.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Not good in a school to have particular groups identified when most kids (for at least six hours of their day ) just want to fit in and be as normal as the others.
what's normal? leave it to the kids, they work it out themselves. It's only when adult intervention steps in that they are confused.
No one has the right to bully anyone for any predudice they hold. just stop the bullying for "every" child.
what's normal? leave it to the kids, they work it out themselves. It's only when adult intervention steps in that they are confused.
No one has the right to bully anyone for any predudice they hold. just stop the bullying for "every" child.
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Bryn Mawr;1271662 wrote: Bullying is bullying regardless of the reason given by the bully. The anti-bullying message must, therefore, be generic and all bullying stopped at source regardless of the reason.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
Excellently stated! Bullying is bullying.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
Excellently stated! Bullying is bullying.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Bryn Mawr;1271662 wrote: Bullying is bullying regardless of the reason given by the bully. The anti-bullying message must, therefore, be generic and all bullying stopped at source regardless of the reason.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
fuzzywuzzy;1271719 wrote: Not good in a school to have particular groups identified when most kids (for at least six hours of their day ) just want to fit in and be as normal as the others.
what's normal? leave it to the kids, they work it out themselves. It's only when adult intervention steps in that they are confused.
No one has the right to bully anyone for any predudice they hold. just stop the bullying for "every" child.
AussiePam;1271730 wrote: Excellently stated! Bullying is bullying.
My words exactly
When moral values are taught then everything else becomes a non issue regardless of the specific subject matter
There's absolutely no need to patronize children anymore than they are
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
fuzzywuzzy;1271719 wrote: Not good in a school to have particular groups identified when most kids (for at least six hours of their day ) just want to fit in and be as normal as the others.
what's normal? leave it to the kids, they work it out themselves. It's only when adult intervention steps in that they are confused.
No one has the right to bully anyone for any predudice they hold. just stop the bullying for "every" child.
AussiePam;1271730 wrote: Excellently stated! Bullying is bullying.
My words exactly
When moral values are taught then everything else becomes a non issue regardless of the specific subject matter
There's absolutely no need to patronize children anymore than they are
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Bryn Mawr;1271662 wrote: Bullying is bullying regardless of the reason given by the bully. The anti-bullying message must, therefore, be generic and all bullying stopped at source regardless of the reason.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
On the face of it it should be generic but what about, for example, education policies designed to put an end to religious sectarianism or racism? It's something that children learn from their parents and is perpetuated by adults and time shows educating the children is the best way to let such things die out.
The basic principle is the same-it's almost like you can talk about bullying being bad but not mention the attitudes behind it. How do you stop bullying without mentioning the causes?
It's the same with attitudes towards homosexuality or race. kids nowadays are more tolerant than say their grandparents be it less racist less homophobic, less ready to condemn people because they are different. Is it right to allow religious groups to impose their views on everybody else? It's the same kind of issue as with sex education. Studies and actual practice show that the best way to cut teenage pregnancy is to start early in primary school and equip, the girls especially, with the knowledge to prevent it. Yet we don't do it here or in the states because a few powerful religious groups cling to the notion that just mentioning sex makes teenagers promiscuous.
telling children about something is not the same as promoting it. Next they'll be banning the teaching of science because it promotes secularism and stop teaching girls because they are just going to get married and have kids and it's a waste of an education.
If not at primary school then at what age is it appropriate? You learn bigotry and hatred at your parents knee. If you see a parent teaching a child to hate a black man-or a white one come to that-and want to do something why is homophobia any different.
Also, the vast majority of elementary school children are too young to understand the issues behind homosexuality and mostly mimic their parents if they consider it at all. It is not appropriate to introduce the subject into school at that sort of age.
IMHO the school board was wrong to introduce it in the first place and had little option but to withdraw it.
On the face of it it should be generic but what about, for example, education policies designed to put an end to religious sectarianism or racism? It's something that children learn from their parents and is perpetuated by adults and time shows educating the children is the best way to let such things die out.
The basic principle is the same-it's almost like you can talk about bullying being bad but not mention the attitudes behind it. How do you stop bullying without mentioning the causes?
It's the same with attitudes towards homosexuality or race. kids nowadays are more tolerant than say their grandparents be it less racist less homophobic, less ready to condemn people because they are different. Is it right to allow religious groups to impose their views on everybody else? It's the same kind of issue as with sex education. Studies and actual practice show that the best way to cut teenage pregnancy is to start early in primary school and equip, the girls especially, with the knowledge to prevent it. Yet we don't do it here or in the states because a few powerful religious groups cling to the notion that just mentioning sex makes teenagers promiscuous.
telling children about something is not the same as promoting it. Next they'll be banning the teaching of science because it promotes secularism and stop teaching girls because they are just going to get married and have kids and it's a waste of an education.
If not at primary school then at what age is it appropriate? You learn bigotry and hatred at your parents knee. If you see a parent teaching a child to hate a black man-or a white one come to that-and want to do something why is homophobia any different.
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
gmc;1271973 wrote: On the face of it it should be generic but what about, for example, education policies designed to put an end to religious sectarianism or racism? It's something that children learn from their parents and is perpetuated by adults and time shows educating the children is the best way to let such things die out.
The basic principle is the same-it's almost like you can talk about bullying being bad but not mention the attitudes behind it. How do you stop bullying without mentioning the causes?
It's the same with attitudes towards homosexuality or race. kids nowadays are more tolerant than say their grandparents be it less racist less homophobic, less ready to condemn people because they are different. Is it right to allow religious groups to impose their views on everybody else? It's the same kind of issue as with sex education. Studies and actual practice show that the best way to cut teenage pregnancy is to start early in primary school and equip, the girls especially, with the knowledge to prevent it. Yet we don't do it here or in the states because a few powerful religious groups cling to the notion that just mentioning sex makes teenagers promiscuous.
telling children about something is not the same as promoting it. Next they'll be banning the teaching of science because it promotes secularism and stop teaching girls because they are just going to get married and have kids and it's a waste of an education.
If not at primary school then at what age is it appropriate? You learn bigotry and hatred at your parents knee. If you see a parent teaching a child to hate a black man-or a white one come to that-and want to do something why is homophobia any different.
The teaching of religious and cultural tolerance should be separate from, but parallel to, the message about bullying.
Hammer in the message that bullying in all its forms is wrong and pursue a zero tolerance approach to eliminating it. At the same time teach religious and cultural tolerance.
I would still say that elementary school would be too early to be teaching children about homosexuality just as I would say that it is too early to be giving them any form of sex education - first year secondary is time enough for that (eleven years old).
The basic principle is the same-it's almost like you can talk about bullying being bad but not mention the attitudes behind it. How do you stop bullying without mentioning the causes?
It's the same with attitudes towards homosexuality or race. kids nowadays are more tolerant than say their grandparents be it less racist less homophobic, less ready to condemn people because they are different. Is it right to allow religious groups to impose their views on everybody else? It's the same kind of issue as with sex education. Studies and actual practice show that the best way to cut teenage pregnancy is to start early in primary school and equip, the girls especially, with the knowledge to prevent it. Yet we don't do it here or in the states because a few powerful religious groups cling to the notion that just mentioning sex makes teenagers promiscuous.
telling children about something is not the same as promoting it. Next they'll be banning the teaching of science because it promotes secularism and stop teaching girls because they are just going to get married and have kids and it's a waste of an education.
If not at primary school then at what age is it appropriate? You learn bigotry and hatred at your parents knee. If you see a parent teaching a child to hate a black man-or a white one come to that-and want to do something why is homophobia any different.
The teaching of religious and cultural tolerance should be separate from, but parallel to, the message about bullying.
Hammer in the message that bullying in all its forms is wrong and pursue a zero tolerance approach to eliminating it. At the same time teach religious and cultural tolerance.
I would still say that elementary school would be too early to be teaching children about homosexuality just as I would say that it is too early to be giving them any form of sex education - first year secondary is time enough for that (eleven years old).
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
It's about teaching kids moral principle and the only way to do that is to show them love. It's then that they realize how much they like being loved which enables them to understand the importance in showing love because they too then know what it's like to be loved and can't help but spread it.
Homosexuality or religion has nothing to do with any of it
I was raised catholic and went to catholic schools. Church everyday. I find the bible to be patronizing and insulting to my intelligence. I'd rather watch bulls circle around scraping mud over their on fecal matter ffs! than to sit in church
I can't think of one moment where my parents hadn't suggested to me that being as noble as I possibly could/can is what's important in life and that is all derived from empathy. What a child experiences is what a child is taught therefore I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to teach children about anything related to sex because all they know is that they are, from which is not adults. Adults know of sex not children(Not at least primarily). Same with religion. Teach kids about moral integrity and by all means share a story with them that will help them see the importance of love but all I ask is that you don't try and suggest that "Moses parted the Red Sea" because it's bogus and highly insulting!
Homosexuality or religion has nothing to do with any of it
I was raised catholic and went to catholic schools. Church everyday. I find the bible to be patronizing and insulting to my intelligence. I'd rather watch bulls circle around scraping mud over their on fecal matter ffs! than to sit in church
I can't think of one moment where my parents hadn't suggested to me that being as noble as I possibly could/can is what's important in life and that is all derived from empathy. What a child experiences is what a child is taught therefore I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to teach children about anything related to sex because all they know is that they are, from which is not adults. Adults know of sex not children(Not at least primarily). Same with religion. Teach kids about moral integrity and by all means share a story with them that will help them see the importance of love but all I ask is that you don't try and suggest that "Moses parted the Red Sea" because it's bogus and highly insulting!
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
K.Snyder;1272201 wrote: It's about teaching kids moral principle and the only way to do that is to show them love. It's then that they realize how much they like being loved which enables them to understand the importance in showing love because they too then know what it's like to be loved and can't help but spread it.
Homosexuality or religion has nothing to do with any of it
I was raised catholic and went to catholic schools. Church everyday. I find the bible to be patronizing and insulting to my intelligence. I'd rather watch bulls circle around scraping mud over their on fecal matter ffs! than to sit in church
I can't think of one moment where my parents hadn't suggested to me that being as noble as I possibly could/can is what's important in life and that is all derived from empathy. What a child experiences is what a child is taught therefore I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to teach children about anything related to sex because all they know is that they are, from which is not adults. Adults know of sex not children(Not at least primarily). Same with religion. Teach kids about moral integrity and by all means share a story with them that will help them see the importance of love but all I ask is that you don't try and suggest that "Moses parted the Red Sea" because it's bogus and highly insulting!K, how do you expect strangers to show other stranger's children love?
Its a worthy principle you've got there, but first (oh I'm gonna regret doing this) define love if you wouldn't mind.
Homosexuality or religion has nothing to do with any of it
I was raised catholic and went to catholic schools. Church everyday. I find the bible to be patronizing and insulting to my intelligence. I'd rather watch bulls circle around scraping mud over their on fecal matter ffs! than to sit in church
I can't think of one moment where my parents hadn't suggested to me that being as noble as I possibly could/can is what's important in life and that is all derived from empathy. What a child experiences is what a child is taught therefore I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to teach children about anything related to sex because all they know is that they are, from which is not adults. Adults know of sex not children(Not at least primarily). Same with religion. Teach kids about moral integrity and by all means share a story with them that will help them see the importance of love but all I ask is that you don't try and suggest that "Moses parted the Red Sea" because it's bogus and highly insulting!K, how do you expect strangers to show other stranger's children love?
Its a worthy principle you've got there, but first (oh I'm gonna regret doing this) define love if you wouldn't mind.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Ahso!;1272246 wrote: K, how do you expect strangers to show other stranger's children love?
Its a worthy principle you've got there, but first (oh I'm gonna regret doing this) define love if you wouldn't mind.
Differentiating "strangers" from "family" is entirely the problem and doesn't surprise me in the least you need the definition of "love"
Love -
# a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"
# any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for **** fighting";
# have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him"
# beloved: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment define: love - Google Search
Its a worthy principle you've got there, but first (oh I'm gonna regret doing this) define love if you wouldn't mind.
Differentiating "strangers" from "family" is entirely the problem and doesn't surprise me in the least you need the definition of "love"
Love -
# a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"
# any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for **** fighting";
# have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him"
# beloved: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment define: love - Google Search
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
K.Snyder;1272260 wrote: Differentiating "strangers" from "family" is entirely the problem and doesn't surprise me in the least you need the definition of "love"
define: love - Google SearchAnd the point being that (check definition #1), strangers do not have the capacity to transfer a strong enough positive emotion to another stranger's child for it to qualify as "love."
Now tell me what are acts of love.
define: love - Google SearchAnd the point being that (check definition #1), strangers do not have the capacity to transfer a strong enough positive emotion to another stranger's child for it to qualify as "love."
Now tell me what are acts of love.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Bay schools phase out gay-friendly curriculum
Ahso!;1272284 wrote: And the point being that (check definition #1), strangers do not have the capacity to transfer a strong enough positive emotion to another stranger's child for it to qualify as "love."I not only completely and utterly disagree but I know what you've stated to be completely and utterly 100% false
Not only that but I have a heart weighed in stone at the mere thought of it let alone reading it
Ahso!;1272284 wrote:
Now tell me what are acts of love. Now that you're 100% interested in knowing I'll tell you.
If it weren't for my patience I'd never bothered in the first place
Love is allowing "your" child to be themselves equal to "your" ability to teach them "why" "you" care. The "why" is how you become to know the "how".
The "how" is a mere existence but only after the "why" had explained it.
Anything else is a lost cause and evident by ones lack of civility.
It raises the question "How in the world would anyone understand "why" if no one knew "how" to teach them?".
Love is quintessentially defined as "empathy with the intent to sympathize". It's entirely how you get the phrase "How do you expect to love anyone if you don't love yourself". "Love" henceforth is defined by ones ability to love themselves, pure and simple
That statement will surely raise a few questions but the answers to them are equally as simple, and pure
Not only that but I have a heart weighed in stone at the mere thought of it let alone reading it
Ahso!;1272284 wrote:
Now tell me what are acts of love. Now that you're 100% interested in knowing I'll tell you.
If it weren't for my patience I'd never bothered in the first place
Love is allowing "your" child to be themselves equal to "your" ability to teach them "why" "you" care. The "why" is how you become to know the "how".
The "how" is a mere existence but only after the "why" had explained it.
Anything else is a lost cause and evident by ones lack of civility.
It raises the question "How in the world would anyone understand "why" if no one knew "how" to teach them?".
Love is quintessentially defined as "empathy with the intent to sympathize". It's entirely how you get the phrase "How do you expect to love anyone if you don't love yourself". "Love" henceforth is defined by ones ability to love themselves, pure and simple
That statement will surely raise a few questions but the answers to them are equally as simple, and pure